Where are the Masters?

In the interest of competition I am looking for some help.

Sometimes I own, sometimes I get owned, in FFA on the 360. Lately, I have been noticing a trend with certain players of all Civs. First, and foremost the trend is with those ranked inside of the Top 50. That's the big exclamation mark for me. Secondly the "trend" or strategy is crazy expansion, or at least crazy to a player like me.

These players are creating in the neighborhood of 7 - 10 cities, very early on in the game. I am wondering, what is the formula? Obviously they all have, or end up in a Republic. I guess, I am looking to be a little more like them, to counter and compete. I see this commonly with Chinese, and more recently American. The Civ doesn't matter to me though as I play random. My concern is the location of these cities, they seem to be stacked almost on top of each other. Is this OK? My expansion cities are normally well thought out, and maximize resources. And are they using one city to grow all? Or is the newest city growing the next one?

The amount of cities doesn't stop me from defeating them always, but it certainly makes it harder. Especially if we are vying for the same map space.

Well in a game like Civ, I've bolded the quotation that says it all. Sometimes you own ,sometimes you get owned. Civ is deep enough that there's no surefire way to always beat good opponents. You say most go for Republic, I would try to get Communism as a counter because it gives you a large production bonus. That means you can make new units faster. Important for fighting a war IMO.

Microplaya said:

In the interest of competition I am looking for some help.

Sometimes I own, sometimes I get owned, in FFA on the 360. Lately, I have been noticing a trend with certain players of all Civs. First, and foremost the trend is with those ranked inside of the Top 50. That's the big exclamation mark for me. Secondly the "trend" or strategy is crazy expansion, or at least crazy to a player like me.

These players are creating in the neighborhood of 7 - 10 cities, very early on in the game. I am wondering, what is the formula? Obviously they all have, or end up in a Republic. I guess, I am looking to be a little more like them, to counter and compete. I see this commonly with Chinese, and more recently American. The Civ doesn't matter to me though as I play random. My concern is the location of these cities, they seem to be stacked almost on top of each other. Is this OK? My expansion cities are normally well thought out, and maximize resources. And are they using one city to grow all? Or is the newest city growing the next one?

The amount of cities doesn't stop me from defeating them always, but it certainly makes it harder. Especially if we are vying for the same map space.

Click to expand...

you've gotta expand early to get a leg up on your opponets...
china doesn't need republic because their cities have 3 pop in the ancient era, so they can rush settlers right away. americans can spam cities like crazy because in the midevial era the get the "rush units for half cost" bonus.

I always try to have at least 3 cities by the time i get to Code of Laws, but I always try to make more than that, once you hit republic, then just keep making settlers. always build as many cities as you can defend. don't worry so much about them being within "courthouse range" of each other. Just build them so they aren't sharing resources right away. More cities equals more tech, gold, production etc...

don't rush libraries early on either. Rushing a settler is way more valueble. 2 cities can produce as much science as one city with a library, plus you have the extra production and map prescence to boot..

Also, after settleing the mainland a little bit, try to get Navigation ASAP and get some cities on the islands. Island cities are usually trade powerhouses that are hard to conquer, so it's safe easy science or gold. fish and whales are what you need to look for by islands.

the most common mistake I see players make online as far as expansion goes is not building enough cities, and not managing their cities properly. You need to have some science cities, you need a city that can produce some units, having a city be a settler farm is extremely useful as well...

I usually build 7-10+ cities.. I don't stop till I feel like I'll have enough to comfortably lead in the tech race or other areas... getting cities out there quickly will put you into the lead and keep you there.

Quick expansion essentially requires you to rush/build a settler as soon as you hit 3 population. What you want to do is build settlers/archers, and send them out as a pair continually (Build settler, grow to 2 pop, build archer, grow to 3 pop, rinse/repeat). Then, you want your new cities to do the same.

I generally have around 5+ cities when I hit Irrigation/CoL, as well, you want to start settling the islands once you get CoL, or once you can't settle anymore cities in-land. Now, not every city needs to produce settlers, make sure one of the first 2 cities you settle builds a single settler, then grows and pump out units for the rest of the game until you're fully settled. That way, you can keep 2 archers on each city, while still expanding healthily.

Now the other question I have that ties in with this. Can you make this work without a food bonus? Shortly after I posted this I ended up in a random game with Rome. Well the Barb hut I settled by was Cattle, and it was fairly easy to dominate. What if you only have a 2 Food resource location, can it be done? *Kadazzle* with your method, would it not make sense to build the archer first, and then the settler? Then you have one extra pop working a tile.


The tip on Settler before Library is really helpful.

I am straight on the island cities, cities by mountains for Railroad.

But what do you find is the best way to avoid culture flips? When I beat these rapidly expanding empires, it is usually because :

They are either poorly defended. I see this all the time.

Or the great people that flip, will allow me to steal a couple. This seems to cripple them as they are taken off guard.

Whizard72 said:

Well in a game like Civ, I've bolded the quotation that says it all. Sometimes you own ,sometimes you get owned. Civ is deep enough that there's no surefire way to always beat good opponents. You say most go for Republic, I would try to get Communism as a counter because it gives you a large production bonus. That means you can make new units faster. Important for fighting a war IMO.

Click to expand...

this isn't feasible unless you get the Great Pyramid from Angor Watt (which lets you choose any government you want till it obsoletes when another civ researches Monarchy). Communism usually comes in the modern era, while Code of Laws is usually researched in the late Ancient era or the early Medieval. Researching Communism requires 770 science to get, Code of Laws only needs 60. Mongols are the only civ that get Communism free, and that's in the modern.

Fundamentalism is a better government to counter an enemy that is expanding faster than you and you don't have a chance to catch him due to his superior amount of cities. Arabs start with Fundamentalism, Indians get after 5 techs, and it's usually researched in the mid/late Medieval or early Industrial eras, needing 150 science to complete. Legion, horsemen, catapult, and knight rushes are all extremely effective with Fundamentalism in the early stages of the game. I prefer to use legions as a last gasp rush because the are cheap and they have the same attack power as horses. If I decide before they get Pikemen and before they get knights that I probably won't have a good chance to win if the game goes on (if they are ahead in tech, or dominating in other ways), then I'll build several cheap armies and try to pound their cities, hoping they skimped on defenses while teching hardcore and building all those settlers. It works a lot. Sometimes I set out to do this from the start, it doesn't have to be a last resort.

Otherwise, if you wanna catch up in tech, don't rush libraries with gold, just build more settlers, get to republic and don't stop building new cities until you think you'll have enough to catch them in tech before they can strike with an advanced unit. After your major expansion phase is over, then switch to Democracy and you'll backfill all those techs that your opponnet has that you could research in 1 turn, and you'll find yourself in back in the tech race. You really can't have enough cities that you are able to defend. It just takes patience to manage a mass amount of cities.

Anarak said:

don't rush libraries early on either. Rushing a settler is way more valueble. 2 cities can produce as much science as one city with a library, plus you have the extra production and map prescence to boot..

Click to expand...

This is great advise. thanks

I have not done the math but rushing a library in a city and making it focus on science and one food works great for me. I do not make settlers out of it and I always keep a tech lead while everything else is producing. If there are no Egyptians I am always first to Irrigation and it is game over. Vs CPU

Pimpernickel said:

I have not done the math but rushing a library in a city and making it focus on science and one food works great for me. I do not make settlers out of it and I always keep a tech lead while everything else is producing. If there are no Egyptians I am always first to Irrigation and it is game over. Vs CPU

Click to expand...

You "answered" yourself.. You are playing against the CPU. I would say multiplayer against goot player is like talking about deity (multiplayer) and chieftain (playing on deity in single player)

MorteEterna said:

You "answered" yourself.. You are playing against the CPU. I would say multiplayer against goot player is like talking about deity (multiplayer) and chieftain (playing on deity in single player)

Click to expand...

Morte is right, on Deity it is too easy. Something is obviously wrong, when you can get 3+ cities, before they even have their second. In Multiplayer, it is possible for players to expand just as quick as you, or even faster.